Agenda item

To consider the report regarding Stansted Airport costs.

The Chair asked members whether they were content to discuss the general principles of the report in public session, or whether there was any need to exclude the public and press in order to debate the legally privileged information contained in the Part 2 report.

The meeting was content to remain in public session.

Councillor Evans presented the report. He said the purpose of the proposal was to reach a settlement with Stansted Airport Ltd (STAL) regarding the appeal costs, which the authority has been ordered to pay, and included a recommendation that further offers, including a Part 36 Offer under the Civil Procedure Rules, be made by the authority to STAL in full and final settlement of those planning appeal costs.

Councillor Hargreaves seconded the proposal. He commended the Chief Executive, Assistant Director of Governance and Legal and the Costs Lawyer for reducing the cost of the settlement. He said it was time to move on and make peace with the Airport, the district’s largest employer.

Councillor Fairhurst said the Council had behaved unreasonably at the appeal hearing by changing the Planning Committee’s decision from ‘refusal’ to ‘approval with conditions’. He said the Resident’s administration had paid the price for losing control of the process.

Councillor Reeve said he regretted the lost appeal but not for taking a stand against the Airport’s expansion, which was in line with what the majority of residents wanted.  

Councillor Isham said the Council had acted unreasonably in legal terms, as demonstrated by the Inspector’s unhappiness with the Council’s approach to the appeal, and punishment was to be expected. The defence strategy should have been in line with that of SAW and someone needed to take responsibility for this bungle.

Councillor Sell said the outcome of the appeal was not inevitable and the money could have been put to better use elsewhere. He said that responsibility could not be delegated and this was a failure of oversight.

Councillor Jones said this was a serious situation but the Council needed to learn from the process.

Councillor Smith said the Council had been misguided to overturn the original decision of the Planning Committee regarding Stansted Airport.

Councillor Pepper said central Government’s stance on climate change and aviation had let residents down. She said climate change was already here and economic growth had to be sustainable.

Councillor Merifield said there was a risk of costs being awarded against the council on all applications and the process remained the same.

Councillor Loughlin said it was not the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse the application that was taken to appeal, but rather approval with “Condition 15”. This was a mistake in the Council’s defence strategy.

Councillor Bagnall said he agreed that the Council needed to be clear on its defence strategy but it was time to finalise this process in the most cost effective way possible and move on.

Councillor Light said there were warnings that the defence strategy would fail and those with a clear conscience should abstain from voting.

Councillor Dean said he was disappointed that the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse the application was manipulated at appeal to become “approval with conditions”. He said the Portfolio Holder or Chair for Planning had to accept responsibility for this mistake.

In response to a question regarding the role of members during appeals, the Assistant Director of Governance and Legal said members were not to instruct officers on appeal matters per se but there was scope in bringing major issues back to members for decision. The Chief Executive added that this was covered during the Scrutiny Review and measures were already in place to bring such issues back to members if this was to arise again in future.

Councillor Lodge said he took responsibility for fighting back against the airport in line with residents’ wishes and that it was the Conservative Government that was to blame.

Councillor Lees said the Council had been let down by the Government’s lack of commitment to Climate Change and her members had a clear conscience.

Councillor Evans read out the proposal stated in the report.

Councillor Light called for a recorded vote.

The proposal was approved with nineteen votes for and ten abstentions.

            RESOLVED:

I.             That Council approve that the Chief Executive be given authority to make a revised CPR Part 36 offer (“the Part 36 offer”) to STAL in respect of the planning appeal costs in the sum of £2,050,000 in full and final settlement (being comprised of £2,000,000 in respect of the claim for costs itself, £0 in respect of VAT and £50,000 in respect of interest).

II.            That Council approve that the Chief Executive be given further authority to simultaneously make a second offer (“the all-in offer”) to STAL in respect of the planning appeal costs in the sum of £2,100,000, including all interest and costs incurred by STAL in negotiating this settlement.

III.          That Council agrees that, should STAL reject the offers in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, the Chief Executive is authorised to propose to STAL that the matter is dealt with via mediation. Likewise, if STAL offer to resolve the matter by mediation then the Chief Executive is authorised to instruct external expert advice as needed and to enter directly into such mediation with STAL (noting that any settlement potentially arising from mediation over and above the sums authorised in paragraphs 3 and 4 above would be subject to fresh approval by Council).

IV.          That Council approves the use of Reserves as set out in paragraph 7.